Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who Americans spend their time with, by age

ourworldindata.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 432 posts

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#111

Post by typhon04 »

stronglikedan wrote: post #107
br_hue wrote: post #106

Sad data. In my opinion this is the result of a culture that optimizes for the wrong things in life. "Happiness is only real when shared.".

No way. I've demonstrably proven to myself that I'm happiest when I'm by myself. Social interactions are tedious, and draining, so I prefer to keep them to a minimum. I optimize for the right things in my life.

Even so, what do you do in that time? Isn't it providing some service or building a product for people... and a greater purpose? I doubt you are a hermit doing as little social interactions just to get by and only consuming without producing anything. If so... what is the meaning of it all?

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#112

Post by hnracer »

silveroriole wrote: post #94
Dirlewanger wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a truly bizarre sentiment. Just because the kids move out means they're completely out of your life?

Well, it’s not my sentiment, it’s the figure in the graph!

"it won't matter much" is your sentiment.

Presumably a parent of adult kids would retort that it's not just about the N hours of face to face, but also being proud of each milestone they hit (graduation, job, kids, etc), talking about the kids with their partner, and thinking about them.

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#113

Post by yakubin »

typhon04 wrote: post #111
stronglikedan wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No way. I've demonstrably proven to myself that I'm happiest when I'm by myself. Social interactions are tedious, and draining, so I prefer to keep them to a minimum. I optimize for the right things in my life.

Even so, what do you do in that time? Isn't it providing some service or building a product for people... and a greater purpose? I doubt you are a hermit doing as little social interactions just to get by and only consuming without producing anything. If so... what is the meaning of it all?

> and a greater purpose?

This part is presumptuous. "Greater" for whom?

> If so... what is the meaning of it all?

And what is the meaning of it all in the alternative? It's up to you. Maybe you don't need one. Maybe this question is meaningless.

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#114

Post by eeZah7Ux »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #74
dcolkitt wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Western nuclear family is a very unnatural social arrangement. Anthropologists have found that in most hunter-gatherers, the average infant is held at one point or another by 30+ people in a typical day. The nuclear family has the twin downsides of putting tons of stress on parents of young kids, who shoulder the entire childcare burden, and deprives a lot of grandparents, aunts, cousins, and others of meaningful…

The western nuclear family is exactly what you get in agrarian societies of the past. It wasn't just some random thing the people of the 1950s made up on the spot. When 4/6 of your sons grow to adulthood you can't live in the same household as all of them. You live with one of them (probably the most or least functional one). 2 of the others have their own farms (one probably gets yours, maybe you split your farm bet…

> The western nuclear family is exactly what you get in agrarian societies of the past.

Absolutely not - and I have direct experience of this.

First: multi generational households are extremely common.

Second: people, including children, spend tons of time with other people outside of the parent-child relation. Relatives, often cousins, granparents, and neighbors.

This is still the case for most agrarian societies outside of the English-speaking world.

The obsession with the hyper nuclear and exclusionary family is very american.

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#115

Post by pwinnski »

wbl wrote: post #82
burlesona wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very true. Unfortunately such places are almost all very expensive these days. So if you’re not already into late retirement age (and you moved there 40 years ago when it was affordable), then it’s not economically feasible for most people to get in now.

Places can change. There's nothing stopping suburbia from becoming more walkable and friendly to the elderly other than choices we made.

Places CAN change, but there is a lot stopping suburbia from becoming more walkable.

In the case of American suburbs, places will need to change by basically tearing everything down and rebuilding differently, either a piece at a time or all at once.

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#116

Post by [deleted] »

jarito wrote: post #22
tacocataco wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are naturally social creatures. I wonder if this graph is missing a data point of time spent with strangers. (caregivers and the like)

In many situations (daycare, elder care) the caregivers are by no means strangers. My 2 year old spends as much or more time with her daycare teachers and classmates than she does with my wife and I. They love her and she loves them. Just because they aren't blood doesn't mean they don't play a huge part in her day to day experience and growth. In fact, they play a much larger part in her world than her grandparents…

[deleted]

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#117

Post by jcims »

abduhl wrote: post #76
kenjackson wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it that poor? During the pandemic my son has stayed in touch with his friends on the phone in these big group chats and smaller chats as well. I’m amazed at how natural it has become for them. They talk, gossip, play games (Roblox, Fortnite, nba 2k), and even watch YouTube and TikTok together. I think the model they created will persist into post Covid, with the addition of physical connection.

It is a poor substitution. Online groups nowadays are inherently exclusive and degenerative: they very rarely grow to include new individuals who were not in from the start and often will shrink over time as people feel slighted by something or another and disengage. There is no opportunity for growth. Social groups get crystallized and social growth stunted.

I honestly think smaller more stable groups are going to yield stronger relationships than ones that are continuously growing.

I've been on reddit for ~12 years, for example, and after five or six years still hadn't really cultivated any kind of 'group' or relationship with anyone, so I just started rotating my accounts regularly because the social aspect of the platform is essentially of zero value. HN feels much more like a community, and some of the forums I frequent are even more so, despite being largely undiscoverable and frosty to newcomers.

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#118

Post by knaq »

wbl wrote: post #82
burlesona wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very true. Unfortunately such places are almost all very expensive these days. So if you’re not already into late retirement age (and you moved there 40 years ago when it was affordable), then it’s not economically feasible for most people to get in now.

Places can change. There's nothing stopping suburbia from becoming more walkable and friendly to the elderly other than choices we made.

"more walkable and friendly to the elderly" are very separate things, usually in conflict. The elderly face disability like arthritis, poor body temperature control, uncertainty about lower leg position or pavement contact, bad vision, bad hearing, confusion, and numerous other troubles. No normal or reasonable amount of "more walkable" is going to work.

They need family members who care. The family members need parking spaces. The fewer steps from bedroom to car, the better. A nice goal would be to have less than 50 feet from bedroom to car.

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#119

Post by canada_dry »

watwut wrote: post #100
yodsanklai wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember a trip to Hong Kong. I was very surprised to see a lot of old folks hanging out together, in the park, or traditional restaurants. Actually, even in NYC, there were always a lot of elderlies spending time in the Deli near my home. Maybe the secret is to retire in a place where one can maintain a good social life at an advanced age.

I have seen something similar in China. Old people socializing outside a lot, playing games, chatting, exercising (in old person kind of way) and dancing.

When I visited Beijing I mistakenly referred to the exercise grounds in a park as kid's playgrounds... turns out they're actually there for seniors to use and they sure do... crowded every day. Sidewalk food vendors along every street also promote socializing.

Chinese friends of mine would like to bring their parents from China, but they're having nothing to do with it. They don't want to lose the active social network they have at home.

Re: Who Americans spend their time with, by age

#120

Post by danenania »

_qulr wrote: post #92
danenania wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were in a sense designed by an impersonal process--but I agree "design" isn't the best word since it implies intention. I would agree that we are no longer adapted to our environment, and this seems to be the cause of many "modern" forms of suffering that are unrelated to scarcity, like mental illness and diseases of over-consumption. To me this implies that we have done a bad job in creating an environment for…

The thing is, we don't need anthropology to tell us that inactivity and excessive calorie consumption are bad. And the solution to obesity and similar problems is certainly not to return to hunter-gatherer society. Evolution is just a red herring here. It can tell us how we got here, but not how to move forward.

To be clear, I'm not arguing for a return to hunter-gatherer society. But we should certainly consider the environment that our bodies and minds were developed and optimized for, and that our species lived in for 99% of its history, as we decide how to structure our current environment.

To say that evolution is a "red herring" is absurd. It has literally determined every aspect of our being. You can't move forward without understanding what got you where you are.

Post reply on HN